Board of Directors meeting: August 16 & 20, 2005

Present: Ronald F. Levant, EdD; Gerald P. Koocher, PhD; Diane F. Halpern, PhD; Ruth Ullmann Paige, PhD; Carol D. Goodheart, EdD; Norman B. Anderson, PhD; Barry S. Anton, PhD; Paul L. Craig, PhD; Jessica Henderson Daniel, PhD, Thomas J. DeMaio, PhD; Michael B. Madson, MSE (APAGS); Ronald H. Rozensky, PhD; and Sandra L. Shullman, PhD; and Douglas C. Haldeman, PhD, and Lisa Grossman, JD, PhD (incoming Board members).

Absent: None.

I. Minutes of meeting

A.(1) The Board voted to approve the minutes of the June 10-12, 2005, meeting of the Board of Directors.

II. Elections, awards, memberships and human resources

A.(10) The Board received as information an update regarding Council new business item #33E, “Enhancing Membership Recruitment, Engagement and Retention.”

B. In executive session, the Board voted to recommend that Council elect 115 members to initial
Fellow status, on the nomination of the indicated divisions and on the recommendation of the Membership Committee and the Board of Directors. 

III. Ethics

No items.

IV. Board of Directors

A.(2) The Board voted to recommend that Council adopt as APA policy the following revised statement Health Care for the Whole Person:

Health Care for the Whole Person
Vision and Principles

We, the undersigned health, public health, consumer, and health care groups consider the following to be important characteristics of health, public health, and health care as each currently exists in the United States:

The dominant conceptual model of health in the United States, and as a result, the U.S. health care system, artificially separates the mind and the body. This separation has a negative impact on health care access, health care costs, and quality of care with a disproportionate share of the burden falling on women, racial and ethnic minorities, and immigrant populations. Furthermore, this separation has a negative impact on public health as opportunities for prevention, education, and early intervention are denied.

The structure of the U.S. health care system diverges from the types of symptoms and problems patients and their families bring to their providers. Stigma and reimbursement issues are frequent barriers to appropriate health care.

A strong, integrated health care system and approach to public health in both urban and rural areas are the central (and missing) pieces of the health care puzzle.

There is abundant scientific evidence that behavioral, psychological, spiritual, and psychosocial factors are significant determinants of health status, healing, and health care utilization for all ages, including older adults.

Healthy People 2010 selected Leading Health Indicators “on the basis of their ability to motivate action, the availability of data to measure progress, and their importance as public health issues” across the life span. These indicators are:

“Physical Activity
Overweight and Obesity
Tobacco Use
Substance Abuse
Responsible Sexual Behavior
Mental Health
Injury and Violence
Environmental Quality
Immunization
Access to Health Care” (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2000).

The ten most common problems adult patients bring to primary care--chest pain, fatigue, dizziness, headaches, swelling, back pain, shortness of breath, insomnia, abdominal pain, and numbness--together account for 40% of all primary care visits, but only 26% of these have a confirmed biological cause;

Childhood psychosocial dysfunction, viewed 25 years ago as a “new morbidity” is now recognized as the most common, chronic condition of children and adolescents... 50% of these children are identified by their primary care physicians.

Primary health care providers treat 75% of all mental health problems of which depression, anxiety, trauma sequelae, and family stress are the most prevalent;

Seventy percent of patients coming to primary care bring one or more family members, thus presenting an opportunity for family-focused care and for providers to work in partnership with patients;

U.S. expenditures on health care are now 14.9% of GDP. Total health care expenditures per capita have almost doubled since 1990 to $5,440 in 2002; overall health care costs increased at a rate of 7.3 % in 2003; and HMO rate increases were 17% in 2004.

We note that many of the nation’s leading health and health care entities have strongly endorsed new, integrated approaches to health and health care:

Institute of Medicine
“Ensuring cooperation among clinicians is a priority” (Committee on Quality of Health Care in America, 2001)

“A fundamental shift in the national perspective of the value and importance of psychological health...” (p. 117, Goldfrank et al., 2003)

National Institutes of Health
“...behavioral scientists, molecular biologists and mathematicians might combine their research tools, approaches and technologies to more powerfully solve the puzzles of complex health problems such as pain and obesity...with roadblocks to potential collaboration removed, a true meeting of the minds can take place...” (National Institutes of Health, 2004)

President’s new freedom commission on mental health
“The integration of mental health and physical health is a crucial next step...”

“bridge the differences between the mental and physical health communities...” (Mental Health Commission, 2003)

The future of family medicine
“recognizing fundamental flaws in the fragmented US health care systems and the potential of an integrative, generalist approach...the project identified...a New Model of practice [with the] following characteristics: a patient-centered team approach...patient care in the new Model will be...multidisciplinary team approach...will include behavioral scientists...” (Kahn, 2004)

U.S. Surgeon general
“mental health care should flow in the mainstream of health care …[to] mend the destructive split between mind and body....” (USDHHS, 1999)

“A balanced community health system balances health promotion, disease prevention, early detection… require(s) a partnership between primary care and mental health.” (USDHHS, 2001)
 
Therefore, the undersigned health and health care groups endorse the promise of an integrated primary health care system and multidimensional approach to public health that
Rests on a biopsychosocial model of health and health care;
 
Meets the definition of quality of care;
 
Reduces the burden of illness and injury by an evidence-based emphasis on healthy behavior and psychological health in addition to physical health;

Reduces the incidence of untreated mental health problems;
 
Contributes to more effective use of resources and helps reduce the cost of health care with targeted, focused psychological health services in addition to physical health services;
 
Improves provider-patient relationships and satisfaction with care, and encourages patient-centered care;
 
Promotes healthy lifestyles and disease prevention.

In addition, integrated health care and biopsychosocial public health will help address the adverse health and mental health impact of environmental and psychosocial factors such as prejudice, discrimination, poverty, racism, disability, heterosexism and homophobia, and minority group stress.

We, the undersigned health, public health, and health care groups, believing a healthier population and a more rational health care system will result, affirm our intention to work together toward the development and application of a fully integrated health care and public health system.

Definitions

Integrated care is health care that addresses physical, mental and behavioral health issues at the same time and is optimally provided by a multidisciplinary team of providers.
According to its author, George Engel, MD, the bioposychosocial model adds “the patient, the social context in which he lives, and the complementary system devised by society to deal with the disruptive effects of illness” to traditional medical issues (Engel, 1977; p.135).

References

Brown, R. T., Freeman, W. S., Brown, R. A., Belar, C., Hersch, L., Hoynyak, L. M., et al. (2002). The role of psychology in health care delivery. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 6, 536–545.

Committee on Quality of Health Care in America. (2001). Crossing the quality chasm: A new health care system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Engel, G. L. (1977). The need for a new medical model: A challenge for biomedicine. Science, 196, 129–136.

Goldfrank, L. R., Wong, M., Ursano, R. J., North, C. S., Quinlisk, P., Wallace, N., & Jacobs, G. A. (2003). Preparing for the psychological consequences of terrorism: A public health strategy. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Kahn, N. B. (2004). The future of family medicine: A collaborative project of the family medicine community. Annals of Family Medicine, 2(Suppl. 2), S3–S32.

McDaniel, S., Hepworth, J., & Doherty, W. (1992). Medical family therapy. New York: Basic Books.

Mental Health Commission. (2003). President’s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health.

National Institutes of Health. (2004). NIH roadmap: Interdisciplinary research overview. Washington, DC: Author.

Rathore, S. S., Berger, A. K., Weinfurt, K. P., Feinleib, M., Oetgen, W. J., Gersh, B. J., & Schulman, K. A. (2000). Race, sex, poverty, and the medical treatment of acute myocardial infarction in the elderly. Circulation, 102, 642–648.

Stancin, T. (1999). Special issue on pediatric mental health services in primary care settings [Introduction]. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 24, 367–368.

Travis, C. B. (2005). Heart disease and gender inequity. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 15–23.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2001). U.S. Surgeon General’s working meeting: Integration of mental health services and primary health care [Report]. Rockville, MD: Office of the Surgeon General.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2000). Healthy People 2010 [Report]. Rockville, MD: Office of the Surgeon General.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1999). Mental health: A report of the Surgeon General.

B.(3)  The Board voted to recommend that Council approve the following actions in r

esponse to the Report of the Presidential Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security:

1. Council reaffirms the following Resolution Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment (originally adopted by Council in 1986):

WHEREAS, the American psychologists are bound by the Ethical Principles to “respect the dignity and worth of the individual and strive for the preservation and protection of fundamental human rights” and;

WHEREAS, the existence of state-sponsored torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment has been documented in many nations around the world and;

WHEREAS, psychological knowledge and techniques may be used to design and carry out torture and;

WHEREAS, torture victims may suffer from long-term, multiple psychological and physical problems,

BE IT RESOLVED, that the American Psychological Association condemns torture wherever it occurs, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the American Psychological Association supports the U.N. Declaration and Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the U.N. Principles of Medical Ethics, as well as the joint congressional Resolution opposing torture that was signed into law by President Reagan on October 4, 1984.

2. Council endorses APA creating a process whereby interested individuals and groups, from in- and outside APA, be asked to comment on the report in order to raise questions or concerns, for the purpose of writing an informative casebook and commentary with illustrative examples, with a comment period until December 31, 2005. 

Council also requests that an item be forwarded to the Board at its December meeting that will address funding for a meeting of the PENS Task Force, which will write the casebook and commentary in collaboration with the APA Ethics Committee.

3. Council requests that the APA Ethics Committee, with consultation from the PENS Task Force as appropriate, continues to examine the goodness of fit between the Ethics Code and this area of research and practice.

4. Council requests that the Ethics Committee and Office begin to develop a process to offer ethics consultation to psychologists whose work involves classified material and who seek ethical guidance.

5. Council requests that the Ethics Committee, in consultation with the PENS Task Force, the Board of Professional Affairs, the Board of Scientific Affairs and Division 19, be charged with developing a statement or resolution to be forwarded to Council for adoption that will address further research relevant to national security, including evaluation of the efficacy and effectiveness of methods for gathering information that is accurate, relevant, and reliable. The statement or resolution should make clear that such research should be designed to minimize risks such as emotional distress to research participants and other individuals involved in interrogation processes, and should be consistent with standards of human subject research protection and the APA Ethics Code.

6. Council requests that the Ethics Committee, in consultation with the PENS Task Force, the Board of Professional Affairs, the Board of Scientific Affairs and Division 19, be charged with developing a statement or resolution to be forwarded to Council for adoption, recognizing that issues involving terrorism and national security affect citizens in all countries and so encouraging behavioral scientists to collaborate across disciplines, cultures, and countries in addressing these critical concerns.

7. Council requests that the APA Central Office explore the feasibility of creating a repository to record psychologists’ contributions to national security that will serve as a historical record and a resource concerning how psychologists involved in national security-related activities have met the ethical challenges of their work. Exploring the feasibility of creating such a repository will take into consideration that much of the relevant material may be classified and thus not publicly available.

The Board was informed of the submission of an advertisement for the APA Monitor on Psychology by the Physicians for Human Rights. After discussion, the Board decided the advertisement would not be published.

C.(3A) The Board met with the Board of Trustees of the Association for the Advancement of Psychology (AAP) and discussed ways for APA, American Psychological Association Practice Organization (APAPO) and AAP to work more collaboratively to support psychology’s legislative agenda.  The Board requested that further discussions by members of the APAPO Board and AAP Board of Trustees continue by conference call.

D. In executive session, Board took action on the following Psychology Defense Fund Case:

Petition #2005-2:  On recommendation of the Executive Management Group, the Board voted to grant $10,000 to Rebecca Busby, PhD, to support her pursuit of legal action against the Battle Creek Veterans Administration Medical Center (VAMC) for violations of a Settlement Agreement dated March 27, 2002, between Dr. Busby and the Battle Creek VAMC.

E. In early July, by mail vote, the Board approved the following motion:

Because of the overwhelming interest in the report and APA's position on these issues from the media, U.S. government, and other sources, and in order to respond in a timely manner to the these very pressing events, the Board (in keeping with its role as stated in the APA Bylaws)  voted to "declare an emergency" and passed the following motion:

Affirming the determination by the American Psychological Association (APA) Ethics Committee that the twelve statements included in the Report of the Presidential Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security are appropriate interpretations and applications of the APA Ethics Code, the APA Board of Directors adopts the task force report as APA policy.  The Board of Directors plans to review the recommendations provided in Section IV of the report at its August 2005 meeting and upon completion of its review, will forward the recommendations to the Council of Representatives for consideration.  In addition, the Board requests that the Report of the Presidential Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security be provided to APA governance for their information, posted on the APA website and provided to the public as appropriate.

V. Divisions and state and provincial associations

A.(4)  The Board voted to recommend that Council approve candidate status for a new Division of Trauma Psychology.

I. Organization of the APA

No items.

VII. Publications and communications

No items.

VIII. Convention Affairs

No items.

IX. Educational Affairs

A.(5)  The Board voted to recommend that the Council of Representatives 1) receive the report of the Board of Directors Work Group on the Recommendations of the Commission on Education and Training Leading to Licensure; 2) authorize distribution of the Work Group report to external communities of interest for review and comment; and 3) request that the proposed policy statement be brought back to Council for action during its February 2006 meeting.

The Board voted to request that the Board of Educational Affairs (BEA), the Board of Professional Affairs (BPA) and the Committee for the Advancement of Professional Practice (CAPP) begin coordinated implementation of the Work Group recommendations aside from the proposed policy statement, with a progress report of these actions and further implementation plan provided to the Board in December 2005 and forwarded to Council for information in February 2006.

X. Professional affairs

A.(6)  The Board voted to recommend that Council of Representatives receive the report of the 2005 Presidential Task Force on Evidence-Based Practice and adopts the following statement as APA policy:

Evidence-based practice in psychology(1)

Evidence-based practice in psychology (EBPP) is the integration of the best available research with clinical expertise in the context of patient characteristics, culture, and preferences.(2) This definition of EBPP closely parallels the definition of evidence-based practice adopted by the Institute of Medicine (2001, p. 147) as adapted from Sackett and colleagues (2000):  “Evidence-based practice is the integration of best research evidence with clinical expertise and patient values.”  The purpose of EBPP is to promote effective psychological practice and enhance public health by applying empirically supported principles of psychological assessment, case formulation, therapeutic relationship, and intervention.

Best research evidence

Best research evidence refers to scientific results related to intervention strategies, assessment, clinical problems, and patient populations in laboratory and field settings as well as to clinically relevant results of basic research in psychology and related fields.  A sizeable body of evidence drawn from a variety of research designs and methodologies attests to the effectiveness of psychological practices.  Generally, evidence derived from clinically relevant research on psychological practices should be based on systematic reviews, reasonable effect sizes, statistical and clinical significance, and a body of supporting evidence.  The validity of conclusions from research on interventions is based on a general progression from clinical observation through systematic reviews of randomized clinical trials, while also recognizing gaps and limitations in the existing literature and its applicability to the specific case at hand (APA, 2002).  Health policy and practice are also informed by research using a variety of methods in such areas as public health, epidemiology, human development, social relations, and neuroscience. 

Researchers and practitioners should join together to ensure that the research available on psychological practice is both clinically relevant and internally valid.  It is important not to assume that interventions that have not yet been studied in controlled trials are ineffective.  However, widely used psychological practices as well as innovations developed in the field or laboratory should be rigorously evaluated and barriers to conducting this research should be identified and addressed.

Clinical expertise

Psychologists’ clinical expertise encompasses a number of competencies that promote positive therapeutic outcomes. These competencies include a) conducting assessments and developing diagnostic judgments, systematic case formulations, and treatment plans; b) making clinical decisions, implementing treatments, and monitoring patient progress; c) possessing and using interpersonal expertise, including the formation of therapeutic alliances; d) continuing to self-reflect and acquire professional skills; e) evaluating and using research evidence in both basic and applied psychological science; f) understanding the influence of individual, cultural, and contextual differences on treatment; g) seeking available resources (e.g., consultation, adjunctive or alternative services) as needed; and h) having a cogent rationale for clinical strategies.  Expertise develops from clinical and scientific training, theoretical understanding, experience, self-reflection, knowledge of current research, and continuing education and training.  

Clinical expertise is used to integrate the best research evidence with clinical data (e.g., information about the patient obtained over the course of treatment) in the context of the patient’s characteristics and preferences to deliver services that have a high probability of achieving the goals of treatment.  Integral to clinical expertise is an awareness of the limits of one’s knowledge and skills and attention to the heuristics and biases—both cognitive and affective—that can affect clinical judgment.  Moreover, psychologists understand how their own characteristics, values, and context interact with those of the patient.

Patients’ characteristics, values and context

Psychological services are most effective when responsive to the patient’s specific problems, strengths, personality, sociocultural context, and preferences. Many patient characteristics, such as functional status, readiness to change, and level of social support, are known to be related to therapeutic outcomes. Other important patient characteristics to consider in forming and maintaining a treatment relationship and in implementing specific interventions include a) variations in presenting problems or disorders, etiology, concurrent symptoms or syndromes, and behavior; b) chronological age, developmental status, developmental history, and life stage; c) sociocultural and familial factors (e.g., gender, gender identity, ethnicity, race, social class, religion, disability status, family structure, and sexual orientation); d) environmental context (e.g., institutional racism, health care disparities) and stressors (e.g., unemployment, major life events); and e) personal preferences, values, and preferences related to treatment (e.g., goals, beliefs, worldviews, and treatment expectations). Some effective treatments involve interventions directed toward others in the patient’s environment, such as parents, teachers, and caregivers. A central goal of EBPP is to maximize patient choice among effective alternative interventions. 

Clinical implications

Clinical decisions should be made in collaboration with the patient, based on the best clinically relevant evidence, and with consideration for the probable costs, benefits, and available resources and options.(3)  It is the treating psychologist who makes the ultimate judgment regarding a particular intervention or treatment plan.  The involvement of an active, informed patient is generally crucial to the success of psychological services. Treatment decisions should never be made by untrained persons unfamiliar with the specifics of the case.

The treating psychologist determines the applicability of research conclusions to a particular patient.  Individual patients may require decisions and interventions not directly addressed by the available research. The application of research evidence to a given patient always involves probabilistic inferences.  Therefore, ongoing monitoring of patient progress and adjustment of treatment as needed are essential to EBPP. 

APA encourages the development of health care policies that reflect this view of evidence-based psychological practice.

References

American Psychological Association. (2002). Criteria for evaluating treatment guidelines.    American Psychologist, 57, 1052-1059.

Institute of Medicine. (2001). Crossing the quality chasm: A new health system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Sackett, D. L., Straus, S. E., Richardson, W. S., Rosenberg, W., & Haynes, R. B. (2000). Evidence based medicine: How to practice and teach EBM (2nd ed.).  London: Churchill Livingstone.

Footnotes:

(1)An expanded discussion of the issues raised in this policy statement, including the rationale and references supporting it, may be found in the Report of the 2005 Presidential Task Force on Evidence-Based Practice (PDF, 126KB).

(2)To be consistent with discussions of evidence-based practice in other areas of health care, we use the term patient to refer to the child, adolescent, adult, older adult, couple, family, group, organization, community, or other populations receiving psychological services. However, we recognize that in many situations there are important and valid reasons for using such terms as client, consumer or person in place of patient to describe the recipients of services.

(3)For some patients (e.g., children and youth), the referral, choice of therapist and treatment, and decision to end treatment are most often made by others (e.g., parents) rather than by the individual who is the target of treatment. This means that the integration of evidence and practice in such cases is likely to involve information sharing and decision-making in concert with others.

B.(7)  The Board voted to recommend that Council reject the following main motion of Council new business item #37B:

The advances in doctoral education for psychologists preparing to work in the area of health delivery particularly in practicum experiences have replaced a paucity of such opportunities that did exist at the time the model evolved.  The existence of this requirement has placed our graduates in a poor position to compete with other providers in other professions, which are essential to earning a living. 

The Board agreed with rationale of CAPP, BEA and BPA that the issue presented in the main motion of the item is already being actively considered by the Board Work Group on the Recommendations of the Commission on Education and Training Leading to Licensure in Psychology.

B.  In executive session, the Board requested that the following proposed APA Policy on Specialty or Proficiency Certification of Psychologists be distributed to divisions, state/provincial/territorial associations and other appropriate groups for comment and posted on the APA website for member comment:

The American Psychological Association (APA) considers a doctorate from an appropriately qualified program and a license to practice issued by the relevant governing jurisdiction to be the qualifications for professional practice as a psychologist. 

Beyond these qualifications, a variety of additional credentials indicating a specialty or proficiency in a specific area of practice are available.  Recently, concern has been expressed about the rigor and validity of some of the credentials that are being marketed to psychologists.  APA believes that the public and those engaged in the professional practice of psychology would benefit from guidance regarding specialty and proficiency credentials.
 
APA recommends that psychologists who wish to represent themselves as having a credential related to a specialty or proficiency in psychology beyond the academic degree and legal authority to practice do so only in specialties or proficiencies that are officially recognized by the American Psychological Association through its Commission for Recognition of Specialties or Proficiencies in Professional Psychology, by the American Board of Professional Psychology, or by state law.

In addition, the American Psychological Association recommends that psychologists make use of proficiency or specialty certifying bodies with the following characteristics:

1. The certifying body makes publicly available information on the certifying body’s functions, standards, and procedures, as well as any substantive changes in these or in the status of individual certificate holders.

2. The certifying body is a non-profit organization that has published bylaws, standards, and procedures and is governed by an independent board of directors, with specified procedures for selection and tenure of board members such that control does not rest with one individual or group of individuals indefinitely.

3. The credential awarded by the certifying body is based on a review and verification of the individual’s training, licensure, and ethical conduct status, and an assessment of competence using instruments such as a work sample, an oral exam, a written exam or other adequate means.

4. The certifying body does not award the credential by employing a “grandfathering process,” whereby applicants who apply for the credential upon its initial development are awarded the credential using criteria more lax than those employed to evaluate candidates who apply later in time or, if grandfathering did occur at the outset, the certifying body identifies to the public credential holders who obtained the credential by grandfathering and have not subsequently passed the more stringent criteria applied to other applicants.

5. The credentialing organization maintains a database from which the public can easily verify the current status of a certificate holder.

6. The organization provides evidence of the application of process improvement procedures to credential review and competency assessment.

These characteristics are derived from criteria adopted by the National Register of Health Services Providers in Psychology (National Register).  The National Register does not issue specialty or proficiency credentials, but has developed criteria and an evaluation process for determining which such credentials will be recognized by the National Register and included in the National Register’s listings for individual psychologists.  APA believes that the National Register is an organization that is well qualified to develop such criteria and to evaluate whether credentialing bodies meet them.  APA has concluded based on its own review that these characteristics are reasonable and reflect a general consensus within the profession.

XI. Scientific affairs

A.(8)  The Board postponed the item “Elevate National Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research to National Institute of Health Institute” until additional information requested from the Board of Scientific Affairs by the Board can be provided.

XII. Public interest

No items.

XIII. Ethnic minority affairs

A.(8A)  The Board voted to recommend that Council receive the report of the APA President’s Task Force on Enhancing Diversity in APA.

The Board voted to recommend that Council adopt the following Resolution on Enhancing Diversity in APA:

Resolution on enhancing diversity in APA

WHEREAS in 2005 the President of the American Psychological Association (APA), Ronald F. Levant, EdD, appointed a Task Force on Enhancing Diversity to suggest ways that APA can be a more welcoming place for psychologists who are members of marginalized groups -- more specifically, members who are African American/Black, American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian American/Pacific Islander, Hispanic/Latino(a); lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered; persons with disabilities; older persons; Muslims and others of non-dominant religious orientation or heritage; and women, and

WHEREAS conflicts occur not only between the majority and the marginalized groups, but among marginalized groups, and

WHEREAS one charge of the Task Force was to identify conceptual models for use in reconciling differences when they occur among diverse groups and between majority groups and specific marginalized groups, and

WHEREAS this Task Force also was charged to develop recommendations for how the American Psychological Association can become more welcoming to its many diverse constituent members, and

WHEREAS many of the Task Force members and the members they represent have reported that interactions between members of dominant groups and the marginalized groups identified above sometimes exhibited insensitivity, an appearance of invisibility, or outright rudeness, and

WHEREAS the Task Force has completed its Final Report, which provides the basis for this resolution by: (a) presenting the past and current history of APA and diversity, (b) describing 10 major principles of change, (c) identifying the benefits of change to APA and its majority and marginalized group members, (d) explaining through use of examples, the need for change in APA, (e) outlining specific models of change and specific conflict resolution/reconciliation strategies, (f) recommending prioritized actions for enhancing diversity in APA, and (g) providing reference citations of the report’s major concepts and models;

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that enhancing diversity and increasing the sense of being welcome in APA by diverse groups are top priorities for APA.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that APA’s Council of Representatives directs APA’s Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to develop a Diversity Implementation Plan to ensure that diversity is an integral part of APA structures and activities.  In developing this plan, the CEO should consider, among other things, the Immediate, Medium-term, and Long-range recommendations outlined by the Task Force on Enhancing Diversity in APA that are included as the Appendix to this resolution. 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that $10,000 be budgeted in 2005, and $25,000 in 2006, to facilitate the development of the Diversity Implementation Plan, and that beginning in 2007 a specific line item appear in the annual APA budget to operationalize the Diversity Implementation Plan in an amount recommended annually by the CEO.

Appendix

The APA president’s task force on enhancing diversity in APA
Immediate, medium-term, and long-range recommendations 
 
Immediate:

(a) Supporting an anti-discrimination policy.
(b) Surveying all governance entities as to “climate” (current level of participation, relative level of comfort) and current level of participation of members of diverse groups.
(c) Enhancing inter-Directorate collaboration through joint columns in the Monitor and other collaborative projects.
(d) Adopting the policy of incorporating language and principles from the APA Guidelines on Multicultural Education, Training, Research, Practice and Organizational Change for Psychologists, the APA Guidelines for Psychotherapy with Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Clients, and the APA Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Older Adults into publication and editorial policies/procedures.
(e) Expanding the editorial/publications pipeline with respect to greater inclusion of diverse persons.
(f) Obtaining relevant governance groups’ feedback to the Office of Accreditation and Program Consultation for its consideration in supporting more effective implementation of Domain D of the APA Guidelines and Principles for Accreditation of Programs in Professional Psychology.
(g) Developing a training mechanism for psychological researchers in skills, knowledge, and attitudes requisite for conducting research with diverse populations.
(h) Recognizing the needs of APA meeting and convention attendees who are from various marginalized religious groups.
(i) Increasing attentiveness to diversity issues in areas such as awards and the content of membership promotional materials.
(j) Providing favorable consideration of a new Division on Disability.
(k) Conducting a study of barriers facing students with disabilities.
(l) Developing a newsletter from the Office of Disability Issues.

Medium-term:

(a) Planning mechanisms for diversity enhancement within the Association.
(b) All governance groups organizing discussions of having joint meetings to promote collaboration with other governance groups.
(c) Developing experiences and activities to encourage diverse marginalized students and early career psychologists to enter research careers and APA governance/leadership.
(d) Opening opportunities for students from marginalized groups to be mentored as ad hoc journal reviewers.
(e) Developing site visitor training materials relevant to the assessment of APA Guidelines and Principles for Accreditation of Programs in Professional Psychology, Domain D, for consideration by the APA Committee on Accreditation.
(f) Providing educational materials to increase awareness at meetings to diverse religions’ food restrictions.
(g) Developing strategies for recruiting and retaining members from marginalized groups.
(h) Initiating an APA Monitor series on international issues.
(i) Improving attention and commitment to issues facing persons with disabilities such as access, resource materials, and representation among staff.
(j) Examining states’ laws and positions that may be oppressive to marginalized groups or insensitive to persons with disabilities relative to decisions about locations of APA meetings.

Long-range:

(a) All governance groups formulating plans for increasing representation of individuals from marginalized groups.
(b) Developing ideas for increasing APA’s involvement with international psychological organizations.
(c) Initiating non-English translations of key APA publications.
(d) Encouraging increased attention to tolerance and understanding of religious, sexual orientation, and disability issues, especially in psychology education and training.
(e)  Expanding efforts related to increasing research training to marginalized students at all levels of the educational pipeline.
(f) Evaluating the value of reduced dues for marginalized groups.
(g) Increasing the Association’s understanding of, and commitment to persons with disabilities.
(h) Developing leadership mentoring opportunities for marginalized students at all levels of the educational pipeline.

XIV. International affairs

No items.

XV. Central office 

No items.

XVI. Financial affairs

A.(9)  The Board voted to accept the Supplementary Financial Report (OMB Circular A-133) for the year ended December 31, 2004.

B.(11)  The Board received as information APA’s 2004 IRS 990 Tax Form.